[geocentrism] Re: Last call
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:12:58 +0100
Dear Robert,
>>Distance is perfectly well defined for a given frame of reference, one
>>meter is how far a one meter rule extends when stationary in that frame.
>>The transformation of distance from one frame to another is also
>>pertectly well defined.
>
> RB: How do you extend a meter stick through NOTHING? Nothing is the absence
> of existence - nihil, non-being, non esse - not the physical vacuum, not
> empty space .... not anything, just NOTHING. Don't try to picture nothing,
> because the sense faculties can only perceive reality, and NOTHING has no
> reality. Don't try to use a beam from a laser gauge to measure distance in
> it, because if light (or any matter) were present inside nothing, it
> couldn't be nothing.
Just because you want to believe in an aether doesn't mean that the
notion of a ruler in a vacuum is inconsistant.
>>> 2. Electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported by NOTHING.
>>
>>Do you mean because there's no aether? I fail to see what part of
>>relativity this contradicts.
>
> The luminiferous aether is that substrate of space which supports static and
> varying E and B varying potentials - EM waves
And where is your evidence for it's existence? It was a reasonable
hypothesis, but then no evidence could be found to support it, so it was
dropped. Have you found some evidence? More importantly though, you
cited this as one reason why SR and GR are inconsistent and have only
demonstrated that they're inconsistent with your beliefs.
> SR says these EM waves are not supported by anything.
> So, SR says that electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported by
> NOTHING
Is this really the whole thrust of your attack on conventional physics?
You don't like vacuums, you want for an aether, so what.
>>> 3. The speed of light is determined by NOTHING.
>>
>>I thought the speed of light was about 299,792,458 m/s in every inertial
>> (or locally inertial) frame of reference as determined by
>>experimentation. Where's the contradiction?
>
> 1) 1960s speed of light forever constant contradicts genesis , each year
> we drift further from the true divinely ordained
So are you saying that genisis is part of SR and that is why it is
inconsistent?
You seem to be confusing "consistency", a mathematical term given to a
theory that contains no contradictions, with "consistent with your beliefs".
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
